Although there are average differences between the races, there is considerable overlap. In The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray make that clear.

The following diagram illustrates this.

 

The Top Tax Rate and Economic Growth

Since 1945 the top tax rate has fluctuated from 94 percent to 28 percent.
*not_secure_link*www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

From 1945 to 1963 the top tax rate fluctuated from 94 to 91 percent.

From 1964 to 1980 the top tax rate fluctuated from 77 to 70 percent.

From 1981 to 1992 the top tax rate fluctuated from 69 to 28 percent. This was when Ronald Reagan and George Bush were president, and when when Republicans claimed that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the entire population.

From 1993 to 2000 the top tax rate was 39.6 percent. Bill Clinton was president.

I will use these four time periods for comparison. My data for fluctuations in the economy consist of data on the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted to 1996 dollars. This data has been compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. This data ends with 2002, so it is not useful for comparing fluctuations in the per capita GDP during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Although I will not continually remind you that the per capita GDP has been adjusted for inflation, please remember that it has been.

I invite anyone to check my arithmetic, although it has been fairly laborious. I will explain how I calculated percentage increases during the period from 1945 to 1963, when the top tax rate fluctuated from 91 to 94 percent.

In 1945 the per capita GDP was $12,100. By 1963 it had grown to $14,220. This represented a growth of $2,120 in absolute terms during a period of 19 years. This is how I calculated percentage increase:

((2,120 / 12,100) x 100) / 19 = 0.92 percent increase per year

I also used the following calculation, and got the same percentage:

((2,120 / 19) / 12,100) x 100 = 0.92

The first calculation got me the percentage increase from 1945 to 1963. This was 17.5 percent. Dividing this by the number of years I got 0.92 percent.

The second calculation got me the yearly increase. This was $111.58. This is turn was a 0.92 percent increase from the beginning per capita GDP of $12,100.

With these calculations I get a 0.92 percent yearly increase during 1945 to 1963, when the top tax rate fluctuated from 91 to 94 percent.

I get a 2.67 percent yearly increase during 1964 to 1980, when the top tax rate fluctuated from 70 to 77 percent.

I get a 1.94 percent yearly increase during 1981 to 1992 (the Reagan – Bush years) when the top tax rate fluctuated from 28 to 69 percent.

Finally, I get a 2.4 percent yearly increase during 1993 to 2000 (Clinton’s administration) when the top tax rate was 39.6 percent.

The Reagan - Bush percent increase was greater than when the top tax rate fluctuated from 91 to 94 percent. Nevertheless, there was a decline from when the top tax rate fluctuated from 70 to 77 percent. Moreover, the national debt tripled.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And real after tax income for half the United States declined.

*not_secure_link*investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698

 

The conclusion I get from the above mentioned calculations, which I invite anyone to check, is that reducing the top tax rate below 70 percent does not have a dramatic effect on economic growth one way or another. Therefore those cuts need to be evaluated by other criterion.

What I have done is to confirm, using my own analysis, the study I mentioned in my opening comment in this thread.

 

Ah the conservative pastime of comparing two unalike things. I'm am pretty sure though that Obama would woop his ass in constitutional law while Mitt would win at building a business that destroys other business's. Apples/Oranges.

 

Whup. It's Whup his ass, not Woop his ass.

And Romneys business wasn't destroying business, it was gathering up companies in trouble and either selling off the parts, or turning them around. Which he did more often that selling them off.

 

I've got an idea that seems like it could be a win-win. Instead of cutting taxes on the wealthy, hoping that their additional disposable income will somehow create jobs, why don't we give tax deductions or credits to people WHEN THEY CREATE THE JOBS. Conversely, give businesses a tax penalty for every job they send to another country. Now, I don't know the tax code. For all I know, these things are already in place.

I did find out that there is a law that allows 50% of the capital gains from investments in small businesses to be tax free, which I think is a good idea. Small businesses are a riskier investment, but ultimately, more people are employed by small businesses that large ones. Not to mention that every large business started as a small business, so encouraging investment in small businesses is a good thing.